Did the US commit a war crime at sea? Decoding the Pete Hegseth strike row

US lawmakers are probing a September 2 strike on an alleged drug boat off Venezuela and a reported second blast on survivors, raising questions on authority, war powers and the law of armed conflict

US defence secretary Pete Hegseth is facing the most serious crisis of his tenure after a September 2 strike on an alleged drug-smuggling boat off Venezuela and a follow-up “double tap” that killed two survivors. The episode has triggered accusations of unlawful killings, a fresh war-powers fight in Washington, and questions over whether Hegseth misused his authority.

 

The controversy centres on a US campaign of air and naval strikes targeting boats the Trump administration says are ferrying drugs from Latin America. The first strike under this effort took place on September 2 in the Caribbean, when US forces destroyed a vessel with 11 people onboard, according to a Reuters report. The White House says Hegseth authorised the operation as part of its “war” on drug cartels.

 

 

The dispute escalated because of what reportedly happened after that initial blast. According to a Washington Post report, the commander on scene ordered a second strike on two surviving crew members clinging to debris. The report also quoted a source alleging that Hegseth had directed that there be “no survivors”, an allegation he has publicly rejected as “fake news”.

 

Why is Hegseth under heavy criticism?

 

Legal experts quoted by The Guardian said firing on shipwrecked survivors would likely violate US criminal law and international law. The Pentagon’s Law of War Manual explicitly lists firing on shipwrecked survivors as an example of a “clearly illegal” order that must be refused.

 

Moreover, Hegseth initially told Fox News that he watched the strike “live” and described the targets as part of a designated narco-terrorist group. Later, under mounting scrutiny, he said he did not see survivors and only learned “hours later” that Admiral Frank Bradley had authorised a second strike. The episode has also triggered broader war-powers questions over whether this campaign is legally authorised, and whether Hegseth was acting within delegated authority.

 

Did Hegseth have authority to launch the strikes?

 

Under US law, Hegseth does not possess any standalone war powers. Constitutionally, the power to declare war belongs to Congress. Authority flows from the president, who serves as commander-in-chief under Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution. As secretary of defense, Hegseth is supposed to carry out presidential directives, once they are authorised by Congress.

 

The Trump administration has portrayed the boat strikes as an exercise of commander-in-chief power and existing counter-drug authorities. The White House has said the September 2 operation, including the admiral-ordered second strike, was authorised by Hegseth and “well within the law”.

 

However, Congress has not passed a specific authorisation for the use of military force against Venezuela or drug cartels in this context. CBS News reported that Senate Republicans have twice blocked bipartisan efforts to limit Trump’s ability to continue the strikes without explicit approval.

 

In constitutional terms, the administration argues the president may direct limited strikes to defend the United States and that Hegseth can authorise operations under that delegated authority. Critics counter that launching a sustained bombing campaign in and around another country without an authorising vote stretches, or breaches, limits Congress set in the 1973 War Powers Resolution. That law was intended to ensure “collective judgment” between the executive and legislature before US forces engage in hostilities.

 

What are US lawmakers demanding now?

 

Democratic lawmakers, joined by some Republicans, are demanding transparency and legal clarity.

 

One demand concerns the full release of video and orders. AP reported that Hegseth has told Congress he is still “studying” whether to release the unedited footage, which has frustrated members.

 

Democrats are also demanding disclosure of a secret Office of Legal Counsel memo that reportedly outlines the legal rationale for treating the campaign as a “non-international armed conflict”.

 

A bipartisan group in Congress is drafting legislation that would restrict Trump’s ability to escalate against Venezuela without congressional approval, using the defence budget and spending controls as leverage, AP said.

 

What does US and international law say about killing survivors?

 

Under US and international law, killing people who are shipwrecked, incapacitated, or otherwise out of combat (hors de combat) is generally prohibited. The Defense Department’s Law of War Manual identifies firing on shipwreck survivors as a clearly illegal order.

 

Even if Congress had authorised a broader conflict, knowingly killing survivors could still amount to murder or a war crime. For now, no court has ruled on Hegseth’s liability. The Justice Department and the military justice system would determine whether charges are warranted.